david rigby

Is there a question?

Is someone writing a term paper? A treatise? A court brief? Verbs such as "describe" and (especially) "provide" seem very strong. What's in it for us? What else is going on? What is the context for this "request"?

"initialing"? Never ask for initials if you can ask for a signature. And a date.

Drop the agent?

Does the plan still exist? If not, what is the anticipated handling of any collected amounts? How much was the overpayment? What is the cause of the overpayment? Did the annuity provide make the overpayment (and why)?

To rephrase something stated by @Lou S. and @Peter Gulia, check the plan document; many will contain language that automatically terminates a plan when/if the plan sponsor is bankrupt/liquidated/etc.

Sure, but some of those employers began as single-life entities and exempt from much of ERISA. Those employers had no interest in hiring a professional PA. In such cases, the "flaw" is not re-evaluating the plan's administrative policies/procedures when the employer (and the plan) grew larger.

As I recall, there used to be access to some rate(s) on the SOA website (or maybe it was the Academy website). But no longer.

Exactly. To @penpen, just in case you are not aware, your reference is probably to a draft DRO. Since it becomes a QDRO only when the plan administrator approves it, it's OK (even recommended) to start with a draft. AS @QDROphile implies, the "twice" could imply that the drafting party(ies) are not familiar with the procedures and/or not sufficiently familiar with QDROs. But, ultimately the goal is to get it right, so don't give up and get the third draft completed!

You can find some prior discussion threads on this point, using the search feature above. Perhaps use a search word of "7503".

I would not use any such template. I would not use any comment instructing recipients to ignore part of the statement.

I agree with Effen. Such statements should NEVER show a LS value; as stated, this can fluctuate significantly; if the plan has no LS option, it would be foolish to state or imply any LS amount. Rather, the statement should show the AB, possibly including the years of credited service. If the projected ben is shown, assume zero percent salary increase for future years. Either should probably include a short statement identifying the concept of a life annuity, and (maybe) describing the optional forms available. Any "total rewards statement" should include a generic reference to the Summary Plan Description(s). Also, this is a great opportunity to remind participants about reviewing/updating any beneficiary elections.

If this proposal constitutes a form of payment that is not in the plan, the PA will refuse to qualify the DRO. If this is "horse trading", where the participant wants to pay less to the AP, the PA will be indifferent to what label is attached by the participant and AP.

Great comments. To expand on Peter's comments, consider an example where there is a natural disaster (eg, tornado, hurricane) that interferes with the employer's normal business operations. Governing agencies (IRS, DOL, PBGC) have a long history of providing "disaster relief". One of the foundations of that relief is phrases such as the underlined one above. Thus, the safe harbor described above is not the only method of compliance.

The title asks "must?" No, of course not. However, the employer's procedures for rehires probably do not differ from its procedures for new hires, so Yes. But more to the point, it would be enormously foolish to assume nothing has changed in this person's personal life "after several years".

I ranted about this issue a few years ago. My opinion is unchanged. Especially when a plan is frozen, any "suspension on rehire" provision is contrary to the needs of the plan sponsor and causes no harm to the plan itself.

Make sure you have all your documentation. There WILL be an attorney involved eventually, and you want to make sure you have the evidence, so the legal fees are paid by the "advisor".

@Bill Presson is correct. How can a plan make a "final distribution" if the money has not yet been deposited into the trust?

@Lou S. poses questions. It might be wise to interpret by changing the question marks to exclamation points.

Can? The plan sponsor may wish to consider the expense of amending vs. a phone call to "remind" the participant whose court the ball is in.

Interesting. It has a PIN control. Can you capture some of the questions, and post here for others to read?

QDROphile always provides good advice. However, I read the original post to imply that the "previous employer" was NOT a government entity, in which case the ERISA provisions about QDRO's will apply. The last sentence of the first paragraph "...no QDRO was completed" might imply a different problem: is the lack of a QDRO because no one ever got around to it? or because such property division was not included in the divorce document(s)? (If not included in original property division, the court may be reluctant to re-open the issue.) or something else? The answer to all of the above must start with: You need a lawyer who is very familiar with QDROs.

Potential DOL audit?

IRC 414(q)(2) defines 5% owner for purposes of HCE. That definition references IRC 416(i)(1).

Intent aside, why not a full assault on the statute-writing people (ie, Congress) to fix it? When the statute is clearly in error, or contains a significant ambiguity, a regulatory interpretation is not the best remedy.